By the way, don't think that Nick Bollettieri can't get out there and hit. He can. He did for years.

Nick Bollettieri can hit very well for someone who did not play competitve tennis, but it would be waste of time and even dangerous that he hits against the players he coached.

At one point ,at his academy were world&#168;s best male talents who reached professional heights by hitting against each other (the one who survived became one of the best tennis players in the world;one who did not had to quit the game because of injuries).

Can anyone imagine Nick being on the court with Jimmy Arias and being his hitting partner?Jimmy would take his arm off!

They were high level players who had similar traits to their players. Both of Sampras' coaches had similar styles to Sampras and had played professionally. Same with Higueras and Courier.

It is not important that tennis coach has similar playing style as his player.I already illustrated this when coach taught her player continental grip for forehand and ruined her long term chances in professional tennis.
For tennis coach is important that he is experienced and knowledgeable so based on players&#168;s capabilities and predicted environment in professional tennis, can make quality decisons which will bare long term fruit for the tennis player.This can only do very few quality tennis coaches.

Talking is great, but you have to have been there to take someone else down that road.

Talking is great if it has some meaning.Talk will have some meaning if tennis coach has experience and knowledge, otherwise will sound like broken player;the same thing all over again.

You noticed correctly tha the ones who were there have advantage ove the ones who were not there.This is why I say that all other things being equal, the better coah will be the one who was better player because he saw how thinks look like there, and he can prepare his/her player what to expect.

You make sense. When I was talking about the coach should play the same style game, I meant the player needs to hire the coach that played that style of game as he will be able to understand how to get better at it and also give the player some perspectives that he may not have had before. Higueras had Chang and Courier. All were claycourt kings. Paul Annacone was a pretty good all-court player in his day and especially good at serving and volleying. He was perfect for Sampras. I would hesitate to have Thomas Muster be Sampras' or Patrick Rafter's coach. But who knows? I've been fooled many times before. As for Bollettieri hitting......Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I could only imagine him going out their with Courier or Phillipoussis. God knows Phillipoussis might have killed him with a serve. I didn't mean all coaches should be hitting partners. However, if they can get out there and play with their players, they will have the full attention of the player and usually the player is more willing to listen. When I left my coach who was a very good teaching pro to go work with Lawson Duncan, my game skyrocketed. I really listened to him and wanted to learn from him. Mainly because he had been a top 50 ATP player and I knew that he had been there and knew what he was talking about. He hit with me and we drilled together like maniacs and then I played matches against college players and anyone I could find that could give me a match. So, you are right about Bollettieri, but I think maybe you can see where I am coming from in my statement.

As a player I grew on clay court so I was counterpouncher;good and consistent ground srtokes, good passing shots, a lot of running and retrieving, and willingness to stay whole day on the tennis court.

My style of play did not stop me that I teach my daughter excellent serve, volleys and overhead smash.

I did not have coach who could teach me as a player these strokes, but that does not mean that I will do the same.

Coaches should suggest things with a smile and then ask the player what he or she thinks. Let them learn to coach themselves. They have to in a match. They are the only ones out there.

This is very relatively.It depends on the player maturity as a tennis player and a person, depends on phase of learning process (mental, practice, automatic), on player personality etc.At he beginning coach is leader, and what he says is law.There is not reason to discuss with a player because he cannot give useful feedback.Good coach is one whose coaching style is such that as a player mature as a person and as a human being has more and more to say.That means that coachning sty le changes from being dictator to being democrat including something in between.Even at the highest level of tennis coach is leader who proposes innovations to a player and he is open for discussion.
By cooperating with and discussing with a player coach does not delagate resposibility to a player.Coach responisbility is to coach to teach and later to coach to perform , and he is judged based on these criterias.

There are many coaches who would like to call themselves coaches but would not take resposibility for his coaching.They come up with different excuses when their player lost (nothing to do with them), and they praise themselves when their player win (very little credit to a player).

There is one so called coach from my country who did not know how to coach to learn so he came with original idea,"Coach duty is just to throw tennis balls, and if a child is talented enough he will learn by himself".
This was his response because he knew nothing about teaching tennis technique, and wanted to be a coach.

The problem is that he did not see himself in the mirror so he even wrote tennis book on tennis technique.Nice title (The energized Tennis Ball) pictures,but content was full of nonsense, useless.

I just want to say thanks to both tennisking1 and Bubo for the above great discussion. A lot of great insight can be gleaned from their sharing their respective experiences. I agree with a lot of what was said. Also, as part of my History of Tennis Instruction book that I have partially published online, I have interviewed a lot of coaches, and when I coached in California in 2007, I had a chance to speak several times with Dr. Pete Fischer, who has been coaching Vince, known for changing coaches like shirts since he dumped his father nine years ago. At 34, Vince made it to the 2008 Australian Open quarters then coached by Fischer.

Bubo, I enjoyed your tennis story and read everything and you are correct, taking someone from scratch is very rare like you did. Even Bollettieri admitted in 2007 he had never taken a player from scratch all the way to the pros though the then 7 year old he was taking over was already a phenom when he decided to take her on, so I don't know if she'll count. Dr. Pete Fisher of course, was the primary coach for young Pete Sampras from 8 to 18 though because he was a doctor, Sampras had to go to other coaches to play full time, such as Robert Lansdorp. Interesting that Sampras never credits Lansdorp publicly on his biographies and public interviews, and after I did my research, I think I understand why but I don't want to disparage Landsdorp here because in my book, I am undecided how to portray him, kind of a dinosaur forced to live in the modern age. You guys are funny and right on how coaches who work with a player as a hitting partner or just temporarily are wanting to credit such as for Venus and Serena. Richard used a lot of people to help his daughter I discovered; though he was a marketing genius and played the big three against each other until he got Macci to bite.

Lansdorp takes credit for Tracy Austin, but I've spoken with Pam Austin who gives a different viewpoint given Tracy was from a tennis family of champions and was going to be playing tennis full time from her first steps as a human which explains why Vic Braden wound up with her at 4 and 5. Macci tries to take credit for Capriati but Jimmy Evert was coaching her three times a week and developed her strokes with her father. One coach who worked at Macci's told me when Jennifer arrived there at age 10, she could beat every 18 year old girl there from the baseline if she didn't have to serve. Is Macci responsible for her being a champion or did he just have a hand?

Anyway, Fischer has done something truly unique in the annals of coaching. He takes Sampras at age 8 (Sampras' family had moved from Washington DC)and studies the great pro strokes and biomechanically figures out how to teach Sampras the modern tennis swing because he doesn't have preconceptions to teach something silly like the Standard Method. When Pete becomes famous, the NY Times hires a local California freelance sports writer to interview Fischer as Pete's coach and explain how he did it. This female writer has a tall eight year old daughter who is not that interested in basketball despite her famous bloodlines. She lives 60 miles down the coast from Fischer but asks will he look at her daughter to see if she can learn tennis. The mom/writer winds up driving three times a week and Fischer starts the process all over again, even teaching her to emulate Laver's one handed BH, and this little girl would be coached from scratch and win the 1997 Doubles 18 and unders title at the US Open with one of the hardest serves in all of women's tennis, just like Sampras had an incredible serve. Though Fischer could not coach her at into the pros due to some personal problems, the girl reached the Wimbledon semi's before Davenport crushed her which may or may not have had something to do with that same morning it came out that Alexandra Stephenson was Julius Erving's daughter. Stephenson had back then the third hardest women's serve ever measure, as Fischer taught her the same methodology he used with Sampras. Fischer took two from scratch and should be credited for two top twenty players, one on each tour and one an all time great. Very impressive.

If you guys know any stories I should add to the History of Tennis Instruction, published on www.moderntenniscoaches.com in the MTM Library, I will add them or feel free to let me know if you think I misportrayed anything. As noted, a lot of revisionist history goes on in tennis. I have the opinion that Tom Stow might have been the greatest tactical coach who ever lived? Are you familiar with him and the many coaches he developed? (Stefanki Brothers, Doug King, Brent Abel, Jim McLennan, and many more) Also, with pro players, no one has a track record as good as Stefanki, or am I wrong. We don't hear about the ones that Nicky B. couldn't help (with Agassi maybe bashing Nick a little unfairly given Nick did provide a playground for Andre, at least).

I just want to say thanks to both tennisking1 and Bubo for the above great discussion. A lot of great insight can be gleaned from their sharing their respective experiences. I agree with a lot of what was said. Also, as part of my History of Tennis Instruction book that I have partially published online, I have interviewed a lot of coaches, and when I coached in California in 2007, I had a chance to speak several times with Dr. Pete Fischer, who has been coaching Vince, known for changing coaches like shirts since he dumped his father nine years ago. At 34, Vince made it to the 2008 Australian Open quarters then coached by Fischer.

Bubo, I enjoyed your tennis story and read everything and you are correct, taking someone from scratch is very rare like you did. Even Bollettieri admitted in 2007 he had never taken a player from scratch all the way to the pros though the then 7 year old he was taking over was already a phenom when he decided to take her on, so I don't know if she'll count. Dr. Pete Fisher of course, was the primary coach for young Pete Sampras from 8 to 18 though because he was a doctor, Sampras had to go to other coaches to play full time, such as Robert Lansdorp. Interesting that Sampras never credits Lansdorp publicly on his biographies and public interviews, and after I did my research, I think I understand why but I don't want to disparage Landsdorp here because in my book, I am undecided how to portray him, kind of a dinosaur forced to live in the modern age. You guys are funny and right on how coaches who work with a player as a hitting partner or just temporarily are wanting to credit such as for Venus and Serena. Richard used a lot of people to help his daughter I discovered; though he was a marketing genius and played the big three against each other until he got Macci to bite.

Lansdorp takes credit for Tracy Austin, but I've spoken with Pam Austin who gives a different viewpoint given Tracy was from a tennis family of champions and was going to be playing tennis full time from her first steps as a human which explains why Vic Braden wound up with her at 4 and 5. Macci tries to take credit for Capriati but Jimmy Evert was coaching her three times a week and developed her strokes with her father. One coach who worked at Macci's told me when Jennifer arrived there at age 10, she could beat every 18 year old girl there from the baseline if she didn't have to serve. Is Macci responsible for her being a champion or did he just have a hand?

Anyway, Fischer has done something truly unique in the annals of coaching. He takes Sampras at age 8 (Sampras' family had moved from Washington DC)and studies the great pro strokes and biomechanically figures out how to teach Sampras the modern tennis swing because he doesn't have preconceptions to teach something silly like the Standard Method. When Pete becomes famous, the NY Times hires a local California freelance sports writer to interview Fischer as Pete's coach and explain how he did it. This female writer has a tall eight year old daughter who is not that interested in basketball despite her famous bloodlines. She lives 60 miles down the coast from Fischer but asks will he look at her daughter to see if she can learn tennis. The mom/writer winds up driving three times a week and Fischer starts the process all over again, even teaching her to emulate Laver's one handed BH, and this little girl would be coached from scratch and win the 1997 Doubles 18 and unders title at the US Open with one of the hardest serves in all of women's tennis, just like Sampras had an incredible serve. Though Fischer could not coach her at into the pros due to some personal problems, the girl reached the Wimbledon semi's before Davenport crushed her which may or may not have had something to do with that same morning it came out that Alexandra Stephenson was Julius Erving's daughter. Stephenson had back then the third hardest women's serve ever measure, as Fischer taught her the same methodology he used with Sampras. Fischer took two from scratch and should be credited for two top twenty players, one on each tour and one an all time great. Very impressive.

If you guys know any stories I should add to the History of Tennis Instruction, published on www.moderntenniscoaches.com in the MTM Library, I will add them or feel free to let me know if you think I misportrayed anything. As noted, a lot of revisionist history goes on in tennis. I have the opinion that Tom Stow might have been the greatest tactical coach who ever lived? Are you familiar with him and the many coaches he developed? (Stefanki Brothers, Doug King, Brent Abel, Jim McLennan, and many more) Also, with pro players, no one has a track record as good as Stefanki, or am I wrong. We don't hear about the ones that Nicky B. couldn't help (with Agassi maybe bashing Nick a little unfairly given Nick did provide a playground for Andre, at least).

I think you nailed it. I don't believe anyone who has ever played tennis and made it to the top tiers can credit just one person for getting them there. Bollettieri had Red Ayme who really knew his stuff and did a whole lot of hitting. Stefanki is a great coach. Higueras has a phenomenal professional coaching background as does Bob Brett. Brad Gilbert as well. The more we talk about this, the more I realize that there is just no telling. Look at Thomas Muster. Ronnie Leitgeb couldn't hit the side of a barn with a tennis ball. It truly is up to the player as to whether they make it or not, and even then it doesn't mean they will succeed. What kind of stories are you looking for? I have more than I can say. Some funny, some not........

I think you nailed it. I don't believe anyone who has ever played tennis and made it to the top tiers can credit just one person for getting them there. Bollettieri had Red Ayme who really knew his stuff and did a whole lot of hitting. Stefanki is a great coach. Higueras has a phenomenal professional coaching background as does Bob Brett. Brad Gilbert as well. The more we talk about this, the more I realize that there is just no telling. Look at Thomas Muster. Ronnie Leitgeb couldn't hit the side of a barn with a tennis ball. It truly is up to the player as to whether they make it or not, and even then it doesn't mean they will succeed. What kind of stories are you looking for? I have more than I can say. Some funny, some not........

Thank you for your comments. I learn a lot from you and Bubo. Here is my entry on Bollettieri and I was curious to see if you think it represents him accurately. I also wonder what was your experience with System 5. I heard it drove Agassi nuts which is why he attacked Bollettieri so fiercely. It was bad enough with McEnroe's claim that Nick didnt' know anything about tennis, and Nick even admitted his faked it his first few years but observed and learned quickly. The System 5 debacle was a mess. I loved it, used it with good results (compared to what I got) but in the end, you can't compress infinity into 25 instantaneouos computations. What was your opinion of System 5, Nick's "legacy" and "gift" which I treat in my 1992 entry on History of Tennis Instruction.

Feel free to correct anything below or offer feedback.

In 1978, the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy (NBTA) opens at The Colony Beach and Tennis Resort in Florida, with a one year tuition of $12,000. Nick’s philosophy: “When you put good players with good players, you get better players. From better players, you get champions.” Nick's philosophy proved correct. Other than national associations tennis schools, such as existed in Spain, the NBTA was the first full-time tennis boarding school to combine intense training on the court with a custom-designed academic curriculum and would later evolve and set the standard for a world class tennis academy that addressed physical, academic, and mental conditioning for players. John McEnroe stated that Bollettieri 'doesn't know anything about tennis'. What's even funnier is that Bollettieri in his 1995 autobiography admits: 'When I first started coaching, I faked it. I pretended to know more than I did. I bullsh***ed my way through. But I looked and I listened, and I learned.' For ten years NBTA was the only academy where the best players could gather to play fulltime. One of his first year groups included a 14 year old kid from Buffalo, New York named Jimmy Arias who hit a "unique" forehand, jumping off both feet with a strong, semi-western grip followed by a long wrap around follow through around his opposite shoulder. Nick observes this forehand's effectiveness which looks very much like the forbidden aforementioned Tom Okker forehand. After Ivan Lendl appears on the pro scene with a huge "inside out" forehand, within a few years, Nick decides to adopt and market the Bollettieri "Killer Forehand," but Nick, like most coaches, was not able to transit belief into a written formula for the masses. Arias turned pro at 16, reached number 5 in the world, came down with Mononucleosis at 20, and after a layoff from tennis, after 21, never regained his forehand mastery, even though coached by Nick, who blamed it on the transition to graphite racquets from wood. The importance of Jimmy Arias' forehand should be noted because though it was already used by pros before him as well as a growing number of Spanish players, it was the first time American kids got to see the "modern forehand" from one of their own. No one in USA tennis royalty then taught players to hit like this, because Oscar was only recently back from Spain and teaching below the radar in Florida, yet kids all over the USA, including Jim Courier, who reached number one with a full western grip in 1991, credit watching Arias as a primary influence. Arias was brought to Nick after being taught by his father, who just happened to be an engineer, which I find ironic given Oscar applied engineering principles to decide what forehand technique was most biomechanically efficient. Arias no doubt influenced Bollettieri, who admits Arias inspired his "killer forehand" philosophy. In 1981, Nick moved permanently to 34th Street in Bradenton, Florida where to this day, Nick continues to draw the world's top juniors into his sandbox, from which emerges a champion, which of course, he is always personally responsible for. Many people consider him the greatest coach ever in terms of influence on the game, given Nick finally recently reached ten in terms of #1 players he's worked with (Robert Lansdorp would disagree as to who is the greatest coach, but then Lansdorp was seen at a recent US Open walking around with a shirt listing the #1 players he's worked with). Whether Nick's teaching is what actually made those players champions is a subject for another debate as Nick is not without his critics, even among prominent tennis royalty. Arguments will always rage over whether to count achievements of players, like Boris Becker, who only turned to Bollettieri having established themselves as champions, but Nick has earned clout and respect that makes him a key figure in any tennis history. Bollettieri, maybe in order to attract players he might otherwise not, used to give scholarships too freely and was forced for financial reasons to sell to IMG in 1987 run it as part of IMG business. In Jan 2009, IMG fired the three top heads at NBTA and Nick suddenly appeared full time instead of his previous part time committment while he coached players on tour. In the 1992 heading I discuss Nick's personal gift and what he hoped would be his teaching legacy to the game of tennis: System Five. Nick's greatest contribution to tennis was that though tennis schools had existed before his, he redefined the concept of "tennis academy." The success of the academy has given rise to a number of myths. It is not dominated by Eastern European teenagers being groomed or thrown overboard, depending on their tennis ability. It is an elite sports boarding school, housing close to 300 tennis scholars from 70-plus different countries, most of them paying their own way. Anyone can apply, if they can meet the annual fees of roughly $50,000 for a junior boarder for the September to May program which inlcudes room and board. Another myth is that every student wants, or even expects, to be a professional. In fact, around 70 per cent have aspirations no greater than being good enough to win sports scholarships to American universities. That still leaves 70 to 80 students who are dreaming or at least hoping to enjoy a career-sustaining level on the professional tour. 'Our message is always you're more likely not to make it than make it,' says Carolina Murphy, the admissions director. 'I've lost count of the amount of parents who apply for trials or scholarships only to find that their kids were big fish in small ponds back home, but actually average or lower by our standards.' What is certainly not a myth is the Bollettieri work ethic, embodied by long, physically tough days, months of practice, and crucially, competitive action. 'You're not just coming here for a tennis lesson,' says David 'Red' Ayme, one of Bollettieri best known coaches. 'You're here to compete, and competition is at hand, at all levels, 365 days a year.' Courts packed with a mix of youngsters and pros, even in the humid dog day afternoons, prove such. The attention to detail on non-tennis development is staggering, including a mind coaching unit, media and drama department and video analysis suites. And never far away is the founder and figurehead, Bollettieri.

[QUOTE=teachestennis;16427]Thank you for your comments. I learn a lot from you and Bubo. Here is my entry on Bollettieri and I was curious to see if you think it represents him accurately. I also wonder what was your experience with System 5.

Feel free to correct anything below or offer feedback.

In 1978, the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy (NBTA) opens at The Colony Beach and Tennis Resort in Florida, with a one year tuition of $12,000. Nick’s philosophy: “When you put good players with good players, you get better players. From better players, you get champions.” Nick's philosophy proved correct. Other than national associations tennis schools, such as existed in Spain, the NBTA was the first full-time tennis boarding school to combine intense training on the court with a custom-designed academic curriculum and would later evolve and set the standard for a world class tennis academy that addressed physical, academic, and mental conditioning for players. John McEnroe stated that Bollettieri 'doesn't know anything about tennis'. What's even funnier is that Bollettieri in his 1995 autobiography admits: 'When I first started coaching, I faked it. I pretended to know more than I did. I bullsh***ed my way through. But I looked and I listened, and I learned.' For ten years NBTA was the only academy where the best players could gather to play fulltime. One of his first year groups included a 14 year old kid from Buffalo, New York named Jimmy Arias who hit a "unique" forehand, jumping off both feet with a strong, semi-western grip followed by a long wrap around follow through around his opposite shoulder. Nick observes this forehand's effectiveness which looks very much like the forbidden aforementioned Tom Okker forehand. After Ivan Lendl appears on the pro scene with a huge "inside out" forehand, within a few years, Nick decides to adopt and market the Bollettieri "Killer Forehand," but Nick, like most coaches, was not able to transit belief into a written formula for the masses. Arias turned pro at 16, reached number 5 in the world, came down with Mononucleosis at 20, and after a layoff from tennis, after 21, never regained his forehand mastery, even though coached by Nick, who blamed it on the transition to graphite racquets from wood. The importance of Jimmy Arias' forehand should be noted because though it was already used by pros before him as well as a growing number of Spanish players, it was the first time American kids got to see the "modern forehand" from one of their own. No one in USA tennis royalty then taught players to hit like this, because Oscar was only recently back from Spain and teaching below the radar in Florida, yet kids all over the USA, including Jim Courier, who reached number one with a full western grip in 1991, credit watching Arias as a primary influence. Arias was brought to Nick after being taught by his father, who just happened to be an engineer, which I find ironic given Oscar applied engineering principles to decide what forehand technique was most biomechanically efficient. Arias no doubt influenced Bollettieri, who admits Arias inspired his "killer forehand" philosophy. In 1981, Nick moved permanently to 34th Street in Bradenton, Florida where to this day, Nick continues to draw the world's top juniors into his sandbox, from which emerges a champion, which of course, he is always personally responsible for. Many people consider him the greatest coach ever in terms of influence on the game, given Nick finally recently reached ten in terms of #1 players he's worked with (Robert Lansdorp would disagree as to who is the greatest coach, but then Lansdorp was seen at a recent US Open walking around with a shirt listing the #1 players he's worked with). Whether Nick's teaching is what actually made those players champions is a subject for another debate as Nick is not without his critics, even among prominent tennis royalty. Arguments will always rage over whether to count achievements of players, like Boris Becker, who only turned to Bollettieri having established themselves as champions, but Nick has earned clout and respect that makes him a key figure in any tennis history. Bollettieri, maybe in order to attract players he might otherwise not, used to give scholarships too freely and was forced for financial reasons to sell to IMG in 1987 run it as part of IMG business. In Jan 2009, IMG fired the three top heads at NBTA and Nick suddenly appeared full time instead of his previous part time committment while he coached players on tour. In the 1992 heading I discuss Nick's personal gift and what he hoped would be his teaching legacy to the game of tennis: System Five. Nick's greatest contribution to tennis was that though tennis schools had existed before his, he redefined the concept of "tennis academy." The success of the academy has given rise to a number of myths. It is not dominated by Eastern European teenagers being groomed or thrown overboard, depending on their tennis ability. It is an elite sports boarding school, housing close to 300 tennis scholars from 70-plus different countries, most of them paying their own way. Anyone can apply, if they can meet the annual fees of roughly $50,000 for a junior boarder for the September to May program which inlcudes room and board. Another myth is that every student wants, or even expects, to be a professional. In fact, around 70 per cent have aspirations no greater than being good enough to win sports scholarships to American universities. That still leaves 70 to 80 students who are dreaming or at least hoping to enjoy a career-sustaining level on the professional tour. 'Our message is always you're more likely not to make it than make it,' says Carolina Murphy, the admissions director. 'I've lost count of the amount of parents who apply for trials or scholarships only to find that their kids were big fish in small ponds back home, but actually average or lower by our standards.' What is certainly not a myth is the Bollettieri work ethic, embodied by long, physically tough days, months of practice, and crucially, competitive action. 'You're not just coming here for a tennis lesson,' says David 'Red' Ayme, one of Bollettieri best known coaches. 'You're here to compete, and competition is at hand, at all levels, 365 days a year.'

Good write up. It is accurate. The System 5 approach is just another way to break a stroke down. I tended to be with the higher ranked juniors and pros, so I did little teaching in that method. And yes, we were always honest with parents and kids about making it. The tough thing is is that when you are assessing a 12 year old or younger, you have not allowed the time for the hormones to kick in. Some kids would go from the next Jim Courier to the next hormonal maniac just like that. So, it really was hard to say when anyone was going to be the next big thing. I always train kids to work toward a college scholarship. There are numerous colleges out there and they can have 4 years of school paid for. Anything over that is gravy. If you make it into the pros, awesome. If not, get your education paid for. Heck, I thought I was going to be the next great thing. Boy was I wrong. I used to beat Woodruff and Spadea and all those guys, but once I got into the pros, every single match was a battle. No more freebies. What took me off the tour was a nasty heat stroke. Bollettieri is a great coach, but he is really a motivator. Ayme and Brooks are his go to guys. They were the strong hitters. Then add the phenomenal players when he needed to call in a hitting partner. It made the academy strong. Saddlebrook is a great place to train for the established players, but not so much for the learning beginner. Lots of drills and matchplay, but lacking in the teaching department unless you got on the court with Alvero, Jimmy Brown, or myself. Many of the other guys were just knowledgeable in drills and feeding balls. Rene Moller was quite good as was David Taylor, but David got into it with Howard Moore and told him to kiss off. I did the same. Nothing made me madder than to have someone like Ashley Harkleroad or Mardy Fish or someone who was up and coming request me to go with them to a tournament only to be told no so that the corporate boys and the idiots at SFX sports management group could go. They wanted to be seen and at the time, Ashley, Mardy, and some others were brand new on the tour and had no say so in what happened. That's why Saddlebrook can't keep top pro coaches. It's all about them. If I were going to send my kid to an academy, it would be to Bollettieri. Hey, my kid might not make it, but that's just part of it. If he puts in the time, effort, and work ethic, he will by all means become a tremendous tennis player. They offer that to every kid that comes there, but it is up to the kid to put forth the effort. If the player does that, they will be on the top tier courts eventually. No doubt about it. Those coaches (including myself) will not poison a group by adding a talented player who has no work effort or does not want to work. It hurts the entire group. Better to have the less talented worker who really brings some drive to the drills and makes the other players want to play. That is why so many have fallen through the cracks. Many of those kids whose parents claimed that there kids were so good but weren't given the chance at Bollettieri were not watching their kids half ass their way through drills, not show up on time, not put forth any effort. Academies are wonderful things, but it is truly up to the player to take the reigns and ride if he/she wants to be great. All the talent in the world means nothing if you don't work at it. And that was one of Nick's biggest beliefs..............

In coaching there too much selling and deceiving.I would like that there is objective algorithm to judge the quality of certain coach;the same as in ATP and WTA.There , one may say that 300 ATP can almost beat everybody, but it is not recommended because such statement show that person as uncompetent.When one is 300 ATP there are good reasons why he is 300, and not 50 ATP.

In coaching such objective criteria does not exist so as I said there are lot of selling and deceiving going on.Actually , most of coaches spend the most time on selling, and nothing on self improvement, and improvement of necessary knowledgeand skills.

Considering that there is not objective criteria, perceived coaches qualities are mostly based on intangibles such as:talk,promises.Coaches are judged and perceived by parents of children who mostly know nothing about the game by the way how they present themselves not what they are actually as coaches (knowledge, experience, results).These categories are beyond parents&#168;s comprehention.
Paradoxically the same parents who know nothing about the game will make myth out of some coaches, and will burry anothers.
The same is with newsmen.They write about something they know nothing.
There is very poor coach ethic.Do you know any coach who would say thank you, this task is above my head.No, they take on all jobs no matter how unsuitable they are for them.

At the beginning, it is very difficult to make right choice for parents.Righ choice is main ingredient for succes or failure.Later on, everything is obvious, but it is too late because it is impossible to make up for lost time.

In coaching there too much selling and deceiving.I would like that there is objective algorithm to judge the quality of certain coach;the same as in ATP and WTA.There , one may say that 300 ATP can almost beat everybody, but it is not recommended because such statement show that person as uncompetent.When one is 300 ATP there are good reasons why he is 300, and not 50 ATP.

In coaching such objective criteria does not exist so as I said there are lot of selling and deceiving going on.Actually , most of coaches spend the most time on selling, and nothing on self improvement, and improvement of necessary knowledgeand skills.

Considering that there is not objective criteria, perceived coaches qualities are mostly based on intangibles such as:talk,promises.Coaches are judged and perceived by parents of children who mostly know nothing about the game by the way how they present themselves not what they are actually as coaches (knowledge, experience, results).These categories are beyond parents¨s comprehention.
Paradoxically the same parents who know nothing about the game will make myth out of some coaches, and will burry anothers.
The same is with newsmen.They write about something they know nothing.
There is very poor coach ethic.Do you know any coach who would say thank you, this task is above my head.No, they take on all jobs no matter how unsuitable they are for them.

At the beginning, it is very difficult to make right choice for parents.Righ choice is main ingredient for succes or failure.Later on, everything is obvious, but it is too late because it is impossible to make up for lost time.

In Depth Description of Bringing a Child Up a Competitive Ladder with Advices and Recommendations

Not all academies and coaches are bad Bubo. You make it seem like there is noone with any ability out there working in the academies. I worked there and I assure you, just ask the players what I can do. I don't talk a big game. I just get results. I was around 300 on the ATP and I stopped because of a heat stroke. I beat Sebastian Grosjean when I was just under 400 in the world. And yes, I have watched Nick Bollettieri tell parents that the task of getting their child into the pros was beyond him. I've done the same thing. That was the great thing about Bollettieri Academy. There were enough students and enough money being made to where you could be honest with them. It's funny how so many people on here have this negative attitude toward academies, but the actual pros train there. They decide where they want to go and guess what, Bollettieri and Saddlebrook are the top 2. There is no one way to get there. It isn't some perfect coach who can make the player get there. It is all in the player. Period. I've been there and done that. Yes, there are academies out there that are sub-standard, but saying that Bollettieri is is just idiotic. If Nick thinks they have it, he gives them scholarships. Otherwise, those kids and parents are honestly told that they probably won't make it. Most parents just can't take it when their kid just isn't good enough. They spend the money and just don't have it. We can talk about how a great coach can make a player great, and I say crap. It's up to the player. I've worked with 7 top 100 ATP tour players, both as a hitting partner and as a part-time coach. I've worked with numerous other ATP players who were outside of the top 100 and I can rightfully say that they had it. They would have gotten there without me. Period. It is all up to the player. All of this Zen and spiritual stuff is great, but in the end, you had better be a soldier as a player and prepare to take it back down to basics and hit the frickin' ball. In the end, that's what it is all about.

Not all academies and coaches are bad Bubo. You make it seem like there is noone with any ability out there working in the academies

In all my posts I was pretty constant in my opinion;in another words I based on my knowledge and experience I have clear opinion on many tennis isssues so I state them as long as I am proved wrong based on arguments:Then, I will apologize, and change my opinion.

I never said that all tennis academies are bad , and that there are not quality coaches who work there.I said that that generally speaking tennis academies will not improve tennis player if his/her parents are paying.Tennis academies are good if they choose somebody to sponsor because they estimated that a player has good potential to become world class player, and they will make multiple return on investment in the future.
They are good just in this case, and there are just few academies which have quality staff who is able to do that.In all the other cases tennis academies are just money machines;one does not get in return what he paid for.

My conclusion is based on personal experience, and on the experience of the players I coached

In all my posts I was pretty constant in my opinion;in another words I based on my knowledge and experience I have clear opinion on many tennis isssues so I state them as long as I am proved wrong based on arguments:Then, I will apologize, and change my opinion.

I never said that all tennis academies are bad , and that there are not quality coaches who work there.I said that that generally speaking tennis academies will not improve tennis player if his/her parents are paying.Tennis academies are good if they choose somebody to sponsor because they estimated that a player has good potential to become world class player, and they will make multiple return on investment in the future.
They are good just in this case, and there are just few academies which have quality staff who is able to do that.In all the other cases tennis academies are just money machines;one does not get in return what he paid for.

My conclusion is based on personal experience, and on the experience of the players I coached

I hate to say this, but regardless of how good one is as a coach, if the player doesn't have it, they won't make it. There are plenty of players who paid full price at those academies that are phenomenal players and have gotten a lot better. That is my experience. Why don't you come on over to the states and spend a week training? You might just learn something and it might change your opinion. Have you ever trained or worked with any of these academies? I mean, what do you base your statements on? Very few get scholarships are given and most of those players seem to come back year after year and they paid to go there. Take a week and enter yourself into Nick's academy and then make an educated statement. Many players bad mouth when they don't get what they want or just aren't good enough to go to the next level. It's a pride thing. I will leave this post alone from now on, but Nick is a personal friend of mine as is Martina Hingis. You have made some statements that have absolutely no factual basis and you don't know these people and have not spent any time around them. After you or one of your players spends a week with Nick or one of his coaches and then you or your daughter plays Martina a best two out of three, I'll be glad to discuss things. Otherwise, it's pointless and you are just offering an opinion.........